Jul 252011
 
Warning: Slippery travel

Warning: Slippery travel

Last week, I caught Delta trying to charge me more for a flight found when I was signed into its system. The same flight was $79 cheaper when I wasn’t signed into its system.

In its response to me, Delta doesn’t deny that it delivered two conflicting prices to me. But Delta claims that the difference happened because the price of the flight fluctuated while I was searching. It wrote, “it appears that during the short time between your searches (according to our logs it was about 11 minutes), the inventory for that flight changed and a lower-priced fare class (a T class) became available. The change in the lowest-available fare was unrelated to SkyMiles status.”

There are a few things I find ludicrous about this attempt to defend the discrepancy. One is that Delta claims the elapsed time between my flight checks was 11 minutes. I searched immediately, partly because I was in sticker shock and partly because, as a consumer reporter and a travel writer for more than a decade, I am perfectly aware that prices can change at a moment’s notice. I went back and forth between the browsers, double-checking, which means there were at least three searches by me; I screen grabbed only the last ones I did while they were still on the screen.

Then again, the airline also hedges by saying “it appears” this was the case. It can’t be sure.

But I didn’t expect anything different. Delta just gave one of the standard-issue excuses that all airlines give when they’re accused of fare shenanigans:

“Prices are always changing.”

They can weasel out of a lot by claiming that, and because they keep the pricing opaque, customers can’t fight back with any facts.

“We realize that airline fares can be complex and can fluctuate,” Delta continued, (and, although I’m defensive, somewhat condescendingly), “which is why if you find a lower fare by 12 midnight Eastern Time on the same day you purchased your ticket at delta.com, you can access your itinerary via delta.com and click on the “Change Flights” button. Your new fare will be ticketed and the refund for the difference in fares will be credited to your original form of payment.”

Nice to know. My translation: “We know we’re incredibly confusing and our pricing may indeed screw you. That’s why we give you a chance to do even more research and clean up the mess as long as you do it by midnight.”

There are two other all-purpose excuses the airlines use to get out of consumer complaint—legally.

“We’re just keeping up with our competitors.”

That’s how, minutes after the FAA stopped charging tax on flights this week, Delta (and other airlines) raised fares by exactly the same amount, pocketing $200 million a week.

The airlines, with few exceptions, claimed they couldn’t give consumers a break because none of their rivals were. (That doesn’t make much sense to me. You’d think the airline that’s cheaper would win in the marketplace. But things don’t have to make sense in Airline World. They just have to be legally defensible. And profitable.)

It’s worth noting that Delta and AirTran are both reportedly under investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Also, a judge rules that a class action lawsuit, filed by passengers who accuse the two of colluding to institute baggage fees at the same time in 2008, may proceed.

The other all-purpose excuse the airlines use to dodge sketchy behavior?

“It’s the weather’s fault.”

That’s how, last December, I was stranded at JFK for 32-plus hours when Virgin Atlantic refused to let me out of a flight even though it was scheduled to depart at the peak of the snowstorm of the decade. And once it marooned us, there were no blankets and no food. Irresponsible? Yes. But if an airline finds a way to blame the weather, as Virgin Atlantic did, the government can’t punish it. This one often works even if the skies above your airport are crystalline clear and the bluebirds are chirping sweetly — surely you’ve been handed this excuse on an apparently beautiful day. You can’t speak for what the weather is doing somewhere else.

These excuses are pretty much iron-clad. Why? Because you can’t prove them false. You aren’t privy to the truth.

Jul 212011
 

Take a look at the screen grab below. To the left is an air ticket priced by a passenger who is signed in as a Delta Air Lines frequent flier. To the right is the same itinerary, except this one is quoted on a separate Web browser, without signing in. They were priced at the same time.

Delta wants to charge the passenger who signed in $79.30 more for the same flights.

The search happened when the passenger needed to change an existing reservation. Notice that the first legs on these itineraries register as a different fare class (T or K). For whatever reason, the frequent flier was not offered the lowest-priced fare leg. (Nice catch, @SimonTravels.) That bumps up the cost of the ticket for the SkyMiles member by nearly $80.

How much does Delta stand to make from all the passengers who fail to notice this discrepancy? Few customers do price checks in separate browsers when they need to change a reservation, so ripoffs like this, if they happen, go undetected.

When Delta was telephoned for a price quote of the same flights, the lower price was offered there, too.

The cheap price simply wasn’t given to the person who had signed in as a customer and attempted to conduct a flight change online.

Let me reiterate my common warning: Whether it’s intentional or not, online airline pricing is a shrouded world prone to shifts that will rarely be in your favor. Always check your flight reservation prices on several browsers, including one without cookies enabled and with the cache cleared.

If you’ve ever searched for an airfare and seen the price suddenly leap higher when you went back to double-check an earlier option, you know how manipulatable, and how unreliable, online searches can be. Always go to a brand new browser and compare what you get there.

And if there is any disparity, contact the airline. In Delta’s case, it honored the lower price, although so far it has not accounted for how this highly suspicious overcharging happened.

Delta’s customer service Twitter account, @DeltaAssist, is looking into this. The phone rep apologized “for the inconvenience” but admitted no fault.

Delta overcharge for SkyMiles members

Left: Signed in. Right: Anonymous on another browser. Frequent fliers are asked to pay nearly $80 more without being offered the cheaper option. Click to embiggen.

 

Update: @DeltaAssist offered the following excuse by Twitter DM: “Fares fluctuate based on avail – not on whether you’re a SkyMiles member or not. When you reissued your ticket you got it at $528.80 … If you were to reprice now, that fare class is no longer avail which is why it’s more.”

My response: “These were checked simultaneously. How do you account for differing fare classes offered to me?”

For my readers: The lower price was obtained only after I discovered (through the second browser) that it was available, and I phoned Delta to object. Both fares were double-checked. First, the signed-in quote, then the anonymous/new browser one, then back to re-price the SkyMiles quote. Neither quote budged over the course of it. At that point, the screen grab was made, so claiming fluctuating fares as a defense is not a realistic in this case. The issue here seems to be one of fare classes being offered (K versus the cheaper T), a facet of the query that Delta has so far not addressed.

For more on this issue, read my follow-up post on it.

Jul 192011
 
Pac Man eating memory

Chewing through memory, daily

Your biographer is screwed. You are leaving nearly nothing behind.

While you pour your energies and thoughts into the machine sitting in front of you, you are leaving nearly nothing about you that your descendants will be able to find.

You know it’s true. Compared to your parents, or your grandparents, what are you handing down besides possessions? Most of us have trouble locating email folders that are just five years old. Yet thanks to old-fashioned pen and ink, historians can still account for the day-to-day activities of everything from the backstage staff at Ziegfeld’s New Amsterdam to the most lowly privates marching in the Civil War to the art acquisitions of the Kings of England.

Impermanence abounds. You write no letters, preferring email. You send no cards, choosing instead a quick Facebook wall post. There are no romantic proclamations, wrapped in ribbon at the back of a drawer, to be burned upon your death. You have left nothing like that behind.

My own journal writing tapered off neatly as the Web rose. That’s how most of us use our free time now, not by collecting and sorting our thoughts and feelings. Most of us journal only via status updates. Set aside the fact you watch too much TV and surf the Web too much. It’s doubtful that you kept a journal anyway. You will probably say that life is too busy.

We read books by Kindle, accumulating no libraries. We cannot make notes in the margin to edify their future owners of our books or reignite ideas in ourselves later. We cannot write meaningful inscriptions or dedications when we share books that offer ideas friends will love. Amazon has even decided to take back some of the books we buy. Our personal libraries are becoming merely borrowed information, never rendered truly ours or integrated with the contours of our lives. Our public libraries cease to exist altogether, or have halted in their development.

Today, Borders bookstore announced the total liquidation of all its stores, further forcing more Americans to buy their reading material digitally. Digital media, or the failure to harness it, are being blamed, but we all know that people are reading less and watching more. Rented intelligence, rented experiences.

The songs we buy are a forgotten password away from oblivion. We no longer even purchase movies much; instead, we scrub through our entertainment by remote control, skipping through entertainment episodes. We live and die by what can be related over the water cooler, which is often the program that was on last night but will be forgotten in a month.

The great influencers of our time shout into microphones. They don’t pour their thoughts onto paper where they can be debated for years into the future. All of our fine thinking is gone with our hot air.

At Luxor, Egypt, where they know how to leave stuff behind, in 1998

Your photographs don’t exist. Almost none of them have been printed. They are merely a temporary collaboration between light and data. The very memory of you is being stalked by a 404. In fact, every digit on our computers, which contain nearly every detail a biographer would find interesting, can vanish into the memory hole with the wave of a single magnet.

Stop and think how much you’re leaving behind. If someone were to write a biography of you in 100 years, what would they be able to use? Do you keep papers? Do you write notes? Without an electrical outlet, will there be any evidence that you existed?

No librarian has yet solved the problem. Just as every American over 30 occasionally runs across a plastic floppy disk from the past yet has no way to read it in the present, the historians in charge of maintaining our very history are finding the rapid turnover of technologies and the uncertain degradation rates of digital storage media to be no match for the dwindling government funding allotted to making sure we don’t lose it all. The Library of Congress has an entire Preservation department dedicated to placing bets on emerging media and making sure the stuff used just a decade ago doesn’t becoming inaccessible forever.

Trying to get ahold of our impermanent artifacts is why, last year, the Library of Congress acquired all the public tweets ever sent. The chatterboxes of the bloggerati scoffed, but in fact, the staff there is concerned about how we are becoming historical ghosts. They are desperate to find a way to preserve the details of our day-to-day lives, now that quill and pen and Bic have all become only occasional tools. Just when they find a disk method that works, technology “improves,” and evolves the holdings right into obsolescence. There isn’t enough tax money to make sure we keep our archives current. So with every warped analog tape or time-damaged disk, our history is at risk, too.

Corporations collect purchasing information about us daily, but chances are none of it will be available to anyone once it’s no longer useful for selling us stuff. In an ignored but urgent issue I covered last year, creditors pull the plug on servers containing local newspaper archives the minute they go bankrupt. Your fears, your dreams, your challenges, your perceptions — what’s being recorded in a way that can be read, and most importantly felt, years from now?

Genealogists get frustrated because can’t learn much of our early American ancestors. Baptism records, marriage records, census entries, death notices. That’s because many of our ancestors were unremarkable, historically speaking. Because few left papers behind, their legacy of proof extends mostly through what the government or the church collected from them — provided it wasn’t burned or lost since.

Now we have great recording and cataloging tools available to us. Our fingers are touching the buttons of these tools every single day, including right now at this very second. Yet we are leaving nothing more behind than our indigent farmer and immigrant progenitors did. Will you be as mystifying and faceless to your future family as your 1820s ancestors are you to? If you are, will it be your fault?

Because I now end this post with a stroke of my keyboard, using a period that doesn’t truly exist on a disk that can be wiped out by enemies ranging from solar flares to Breakfast Blend coffee (please print this post for me), I prove my point.

Connect the dots

Leave behind no evidence and there can be no true conclusion

Jul 062011
 
Joan Rivers and Johnny Carson

The King selects his newest jester

Johnny Carson invited his best guests to sit on the couch. Jon Stewart invites his best guests for extended interviews to “throw online.”

I tweeted this thought a month ago. But Twitter is like a great trash compactor for complicated thoughts: It compresses them, it grinds them into something you can flush away, and it gets rid of them. Blogs are better for digestion.

It’s true about Carson, isn’t it? It was a gesture that every American understood to be a mark of greatness, like winning an Oscar. If Johnny Carson liked your comedy, he anointed you the Next Big Thing by inviting you to come chat, as a come-down, on his couch. He put David Letterman, Ellen DeGeneres, Jerry Seinfeld, and Drew Carey into overtime.

Jon Stewart has been called the Carson of our day for his versatility, affability, popularity with guests, and most of all, his cultural influence. But he doesn’t have a couch to invite his favorite guests to. He doesn’t even have time. Wheres Johnny had 60 and sometimes 90 minutes to play with, Jon has less than 30, and only one slice of his show is for guests.

So how does Stewart invite his guests into overtime? Buy granting them literal overtime. His favorite guests, and the ones with the most absorbing and complex stories to tell (or the ones that show off Stewart’s curiosity and/or incisiveness), are awarded another few minutes of interviewing time that are excised from the broadcast version but uploaded on The Daily Show website. In fact, it’s in those non-broadcast minutes that Stewart most often holds controversial guests’ feet to the fire.

To whom has Stewart bestowed this honor recently? Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, and Jim Cramer. Like Carson’s choices for further intimacy, they all reflect Stewart’s tastes. Stewart selectively invites comedians for extended interviews, the way he did with his Iranian counterpart satirists Kambiz Hosseini and Saman Arbabi. Usually, they’ve got to be as trenchant as Stewart himself.

It was once a badge to get clubby with Johnny on the upholstery. Now, the sure sign that you’re fascinating is that your bon mots are available only to the devotées who go to the online clubhouse.

Of course, I didn’t have to tell you that the Web is the new couch. You sit here all day.

Ricky Gervais and Jon Stewart in an interview

Congratulations, Ricky Gervais! You've gone into overtime and you'll be "thrown on the Web". This just might mean you're a success.

Jul 062011
 
My So-Called Life's Ricky, Rayanne, and Angela

Every Ricky needs a Rayanne — or at least he used to

Here’s what’s going to happen. Some gay kids are going to start realizing they weren’t gay after all.

Most sexually questioning teenagers, even in the most conservative high schools, make friends with the misfit girl who appreciates both his plight and the fact he’s not a sexual threat to her. And the minute a young teen boy starts experimenting sexually, as teen boys do, those Best Girlfriends are there to support and applaud. A generation ago, that best friend might have reacted with shock, or looked the other way.

But today, all a boy has to do is so much as get caught glancing at the cool jock at summer camp, as teen boys do, and he’ll be met with a chorus of friend encouragement, assuring him that he can be who he wants to be without losing their love. “Omigod! You’re totally gay! That’s awesome! Ask him out!” So teen boys dabble, as teen boys do, and pretty soon, because his friends have been so aggressive about their support, he’s “gay.”

By now, we’re several iterations past Angela Chase and Ricky Vasquez. The gay boy/supportive girl relationship has become a cultural archetype. Rachel Berry and Kurt Hummel don’t spend much time grieving to gay wounds; they compete like savages for the chance to sing “Defying Gravity.”  The kids coming up today view even Will & Grace as an antique. And so will we all, I think, with time. These characters were created to make statements about our era, but the truly shifting nature of human sexuality has been de-emphasized as long as there was a political-social point that needed to be made.

These days, with anti-gay bigotry so readily available from the older generations, many younger people think it’s something of a political statement to show rainbow flag-flying support for their sexually emerging peers. Homophobia from elders has made homophilia among teens a statement of their impending social triumph.

Darren Criss and Chris Colfer from Glee, Entertainment Weekly cover

Okay, maybe not them.

But what teenager knows who they truly are as a bottom line? I predict that the vocal support that comes from high school peers may, in fact, be hasty for some people. It will, for some, have a bounceback. Because some of those kids truly were merely experimenting and got locked into a self-definition by the sheer force of social acceptance. With kids coming out earlier and earlier — as soon as puberty hits, in many cases — confusion is bound to happen.

It’s not that they’ll be going back into the closet, per se, because that would imply they are returning to hiding. Instead, some kids will undergo a sort of “hetero correction.”

And that will present a whole new set of acceptance challenges, because some of us have grown so conditioned to supporting coming out of the closet that we’re a little suspicious when someone realizes they never had a closet to begin with. What’s more, in conservative communities, the upstream-swimming self-hatred that’s nurtured by the “ex-gay”  movement has tainted the motives of any return to heterosexuality that a person might genuinely feel inclined to make.

I’m a little nervous even positing this scenario, less someone accuse me of making apologies for coming out of the closet, or suggesting it’s “better” if kids were straight. I’m not suggesting anything like that, of course. If anything, I’m validating the Kinsey Scale, and acknowledging that if it’s true, then some people will find themselves wanting to wander back to the other end of it, but finding their environment, for heretofore necessary social reasons, may be resistant to a sexual re-definition that travels the other way.

Bryan Elsley, the co-creator of Skins, feared just such a thing last year when his lesbian character Tea Marvelli (Sofia Black-D’Elia) developed conflicting emotions after messing around with a boy. “We’re just trying to express how screwy people’s lives can be,” he explained to Entertainment Weekly. “We’re hoping that people in the gay community will recognize something in those stories.”

Don’t shut that closet door on your way out.

Could you trust someone who spent years waving a rainbow flag when they say they’re now in love with a woman? Some of the cornerstones of gay political ideology — indeed, the core emotional principles behind the validation of gay marriage — are that love is mutable, people are people no matter their gender, and that it’s the human condition to love another human.

Will gay people, hardened and made suspicious by years of fighting bigotry, be able to embrace their friends who decide there is a place for the opposite sex in their lives after all? Will the opposite sex trust it, either?

Now that gay marriage is being validated on a wider scale, and building a defensive fortress around sexual identity is slowly (verrry slowly) becoming less necessary, over the coming generation, gay people will have to find new ways to define their own sexuality that doesn’t pitch them versus the rest of the world. Gay bars are dying around the country because kids are comfortable mingling everywhere. Mental desegregation may follow. And hallelujah for that.

Sofia Black-D'Elia

Tea Marvelli from ‘Skins’: Bi-bi, lesbianism